posted May 25, 2008 06:44 AM         

For instance, did anyone else find "Love Signs" at least somewhat sexist, despite the claim by the author that she was pro-women and had some ERA leanings? I try to keep the fact that the book was written about 30 years ago in mind, but some of the things that Linda says still bother me; e.g., she's always saying that women should submit, that it's "natural" or "you can't change mother nature's tenets", things like that. Men and women are equal and should be equal: no one should be "submitting" to anybody; they should be equal partners with equal authority. There were some other sections too where I thought she was a bit hypocritical about being pro-women because she was still blatantly pro-traditional gender roles....it's like she tried to have it both ways in some passages.

And was anyone else really bothered by the "Time to Embrace" section? What really angered me was not so much her anti-choice leanings (though I am pro-choice myself) but when she writes "people who choose to forego the responsibility of raising a family" and in other sections where she's very pro-family and, while acknowledging that people should have the right to decide whether or not to have a family, is still on the side of people who choose to have kids and seems to be very discouraging/disapproving of people who don't have--and don't want--kids or people who don't get married at all. In the "Time to Embrace" section, her whole spiel about how people without kids should devote their time "free from raising a family" to people who want to adopt; while I think that volunteering is a good idea, I don't think that helping people adopt is any better or worse than helping the elderly or animals and her targeting a certain group of people as being more deserving was a bit unnerving: there are many other groups who need help and they should be considered equal; kids shouldn't just trump everyone because others have needs too, or at least I think so.

Plus, in one section about Pisces she writes that she knew someone who "substituted a Siamese cat for a family". That line--and others like it--were ones that I found personally offensive as I don't want to get married or have kids; why can't people just love each other? And if they don't want to get married or have kids, they shouldn't be looked down on: marriage/kids shouldn't be automatically considered "the better choice" (as Linda considers it, or at least seems to from her writing) because frankly different things work for different people. Not everyone is cut out to be a spouse or a parent!

I also strongly disagreed with a lot of her ideas on sex and thought she devoted a little too much attention to it.

Lastly, her favoritism toward certain signs (which at least she does admit, to her credit) was a little irritating and really obvious; when I came across sections where she admitted some of her preferences, I was not surprised. I would have liked a little more objectivity.

posted May 25, 2008 06:59 AM         

Things have changed a lot in 30 years, and I really see your point on this. The number of women chosing not to have children has escalated, for one thing. And the 1950s housewife ideal that used to be drummed into women is going out of the window ~ because now persauding women to stop working and go back to the kitchen would lead to economic collapse.

posted May 25, 2008 10:12 AM         

You know, saying that you disagree with Linda in a place that is practically a shrine in some areas might be tempting fate

I do agree with you. You haven't given your age, but the way Linda wrote was a testament to the values that she lived by and the decades she grew up in. Women had their place then. Astrology books were still being written using solely the pronoun "he" and describing men and their zodiacal behavior. The idea of women in management positions in large corporations was still exotic. Even though Linda expressed tolerance for diverse ways of living, she had her own very strong core opinions.

And it's true that she didn't like Librans very much, or find many redeeming characteristics in the sign Who do you know that would say: "the typical Libra face reminds you of nothing so much as a box of bonbons. Or a sugar cookie. Some of them look like human lollipops, or a caramel sundae topped with rich, whipped cream."

posted May 25, 2008 12:48 PM         

I assure you that Linda would be laughing out loud if she reads this thread. She might be from Heaven!

Here is how it works (based on Linda's explanation),

1. When you wrote this thread first - Your scales were imbalanced.

2. After some people agree with you, you will disagree with yourself and go on the OTHER side. You will decide that no, I should agree with Linda and disagree with folks who are agreeing with you.

3. Then after a few days or hours depending on your Mercury and Moon signs, you will come back on the original side and take a stand that You disagree with Linda.

4. Then a few more people will reply either in yoru favor or against your favor.

But, eventually, the logic of

YES NO I DON"T KNOW
YES NO I DON"T KNOW
Yes No
Yes No
yes no
yes no

and finally comes,

Yes.. and that time either you will fully disagree with Linda + Astrology and move on with your life in your natural Libran way and throw that book in trash.

or No... and at that time you will continue to learn astrology and continue to balance your scales throughout your life.

Either way, in my view, it is always wonderful when Libras learn astrology because they always want to disagree first before agreeing..

You see, Linda explained this very clearly, and it has helped others to understand you well and not get offended with your partial polar views.

posted May 25, 2008 06:49 PM         

I don't think she is sexist. People (in general) often confuse the words "equal" and "different". Linda saw all of us as equal but recognized the innate qualities of "masculine" and "feminine" just as she understood the energies of "cardinal" and "fixed" and "mutable". People who study those energies and what they involve, people who understand differences and equality, do not take offense at statements that suggest men and women are different, knowing this does not mean they are not "equal". (I'm thinking of a few books I am reading and not necessarily addressing only your thoughts here.) Usually those who might have a problem with seeing less blatant (as opposed to true sexist statements like 'men are better than women' or 'women are better than men') statements as "sexist" are women with more of a masculine balance to their overall energy (I'm a Libra too and that seems to contribute) who have not embraced and come to an understanding of this masculine (and in Libra's case, Cardinal) energy. I think as an Aries, (and most importantly, as an astrologer and mystic) Linda did understand both masculine and cardinal energy in women. Therefore, I don't think she is sexist at all.

The reason she might seem to "have it both ways" is that she understands that those of us with more masculine energy do have more of a hard time submitting in certain situations while someone with more feminine energy (a male with a lot of Virgo energy perhaps) might more often submit (*sigh* "Yes dear") to a masculine and cardinal force like herself (meaning Linda for example) in some situations. She is simply stating the obvious that nature and hormones and the construct of the brain in most men and women predispose most men to more "masculine" behavior and more women to "feminine" behavior overall.

I also don't believe Linda has anything against anyone who doesn't want to have children. In "A Time to Embrace" she is discussing a more pro-active and natural form of syncing with nature's rhythms as a natural form of birth control as sort of an eye-opener to a more Utopian ideal that we could all come back to... I don't think she believes that everyone should continue to populate the earth indiscriminately and I actually think she brought up the adoption thing to address that there are other ways to fulfill any longing to nurture children that a person might have... that a person does not necessarily have to follow a traditional path to "a family".

I hope you enjoyed my different perspective and I thank you for this interesting topic. I really enjoy a good conversation and sharing of perspectives. I think that is the way to understanding each other. Welcome to LindaLand!

I hope you have more to say!

posted May 26, 2008 06:47 PM         

Whilst it's true that you are either one sign or the other, being born on the cusp of two signs is not something to be ignored.

posted May 27, 2008 12:57 AM         

I also don't think it is okay for an astrologer to show that they prefer some signs over others (it is human to have favorites, but it kind of takes something away from the overall message of love and tolerance if you say it out loud as a professional).

When talking about lexigrams, she ignored (as far as I know) that her examples only make sense to English speakers. I hope I am not too bold here, but I believe that most of her readers (by this time) are non English speakers - it is a fact that most people on this planet speak a language other than English. My point is that the deep meaning behind her lexigram examples only touch those who speak English on a very advanced level. But the atrological truth is for ANYONE and EVERYONE.

However, having said that, I adore her and she introduced me to astrology, and astrology has made me start to understand a little about the higher truth.